WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2021
Then, we clicked a link: Last Friday, the Washington Post published an essay about police shooting deaths.
The topic is very important. Accompanied by a large photo, the essay appeared at the top of page A21—the page called FRIDAY OPINION.
Technically, the essay was an "opinion column—and its author, DeVitta Briscoe, did state some opinions concerning police behavior. But Briscoe also made an array of factual claims about some important events.
Early on, she described the shooting death around which her essay would focus. She described the shooting death of her brother, Che Taylor, who was shot and killed by two Seattle police officers in February 2016.
Below, you see how Briscoe described that event. Her essay began as shown, hard-copy headline included:
BRISCOE (3/5/21): When your loved one is killed by the police
I’ve gotten the worst call of a lifetime three times in my life. The first one came in 2001, when I was told that Himey—my best friend and the man I wish I’d married—had been shot and killed. The second came in 2010, when my son Donald—a great student who dreamed of being a film producer—had been fatally shot in the head. The most recent was in 2016, when Che—my big brother and protector—was shot seven times by police, handcuffed, and left to bleed out for six and a half minutes before aid was administered or paramedics arrived. When aid finally came, it was too late. Another person I loved, killed by a gun.
The aftermath of each of those shootings was remarkably similar: the pain, the loss, the stigma. And yet, there was one important difference: how justice was, or was not, done.
Himey and Donald’s killers were convicted and are in jail, paying their debt to society. Che’s killers can still be paid to protect and serve us, despite the fact that they shot him within nine seconds of approaching him, while he complied with orders, and then blamed it on him reaching for a gun in his waistband. There was no gun in his waistband.
In her third paragraph, Briscoe described the incident in which her brother was shot and killed.
The police officers who shot and killed her brother "blamed it on him reaching for a gun in his waistband," Briscoe said. "There was no gun in his waistband."
Briscoe's implication was obvious. Rather plainly, she seemed to be saying that the officer's claim about the gun was false. Indeed, another implication seemed clear:
Briscoe seemed to be saying that her brother hadn't been armed at all.
"There was no gun in his waistband?" This was a dramatic, highly familiar claim. It seemed to say that, in this incident, Seattle police had shot and killed yet another unarmed man.
As we do in a wide array of journalistic matters, we decided to check Briscoe's (several) links. We decided to see what kind of sourcing—what kind of evidence—she had presented in support of her implications and claims.
In the passage describing her brother's death, Briscoe included three separate links. Somewhat oddly, all three links led to a single news report—a report about the way an eight-member Seattle inquest jury had evaluated the officers' conduct in the matter of Taylor's death.
For ourselves, we can't tell you what actually happened when Taylor was shot and killed. Seattle police did release videotape of the incident, but Taylor is largely hidden from the camera's view, behind an open car door, during the brief, deadly incident.
We can tell you what we found when we clicked the link Briscoe (and the Post) had offered in support of her factual claims and her obvious insinuation. Also, we can tell you this:
It's astounding to think that the Washington Post published Briscoe's essay in the form it took. As a matter of basic journalism, it's amazing to think that the Post did that—amazing, and yet not surprising.
Remember—we didn't go hunting for some account which might contradict or challenge Briscoe's account. Initially, we simply clicked the link she herself had supplied—she herself, and the Washington Post.
When we clicked that link, we were surprised by what we found. We're not sure we've ever seen a stranger bit of journalistic sourcing.
Briscoe's link took us to this report about the inquest jury's decision in August 2016. The report had been published by the news division of KING5, a Seattle TV station.
That news report by KING5 was offered as the evidentiary source for Briscoe's claims and implications. Before we show you what that news report said, we'd best back up for a moment.
As noted, Briscoe's essay gets its power from this claim: "There was no gun in his waistband."
That statement is technically accurate! On the other hand, no one ever said or claimed that Taylor had a gun "in his waistband" of the day of this violent, fatal event.
Briscoe's statement is technically accurate, but that isn't what the police had said. In an early report from the Seattle Times, we get some basic background to this event.
Along the way, we also see what was actually said, rightly or wrongly, by the Seattle police. We also see what was said by the two officers in question:
SEATTLE TIMES (2/22/16): Taylor died Sunday evening after police shot him hours earlier on the edge of the Wedgwood neighborhood in Northeast Seattle.
Police were conducting surveillance about 3:30 p.m. in the 2200 block of Northeast 85th Street as part of an ongoing investigation, according to a written statement posted on the SPD’s news website Monday,
Officers saw a man with a holstered handgun and identified him as Taylor, a “convicted violent felon” prohibited by law from possessing a handgun, the statement said. They called for additional units around 4:15 p.m. to assist in taking Taylor into custody.
While Taylor stood at the passenger door of a white Ford Taurus, a marked patrol vehicle with its emergency lights activated pulled up facing the Taurus as an arrest team approached the car, according to police.
“Officers ordered Taylor to show his hands and get on the ground,” the statement said. “He did not follow officers’ commands, and instead leaned into the Taurus.”
Officers and a civilian witness interviewed by investigators reported Taylor reached for a handgun, the statement said.
Two officers, who have yet to be identified, then fired. Investigators did not release information about their race.
The patrol-car video doesn’t capture all of Taylor’s actions, some of which are obscured by the Taurus.
Police detained two other people in the car, called for medics and performed CPR on Taylor until medics arrived, according to the statement. He was taken to Harborview Medical Center, where he died.
Detectives served search warrants as part of the investigation, and recovered Taylor’s handgun, the statement said.
That report by the Seattle Times provides the basic background. It also reports what the Seattle Police Department actually said about this incident. (We'll fill in a bit with information from other reports, including from the Washington Post's Fatal Force web site.)
According to Seattle police, officers had seen Taylor out and about, in midafternoon, "with a holstered handgun." According to Seattle police, they recognized him as a convicted felon who didn't have the right to possess a gun.
According to Seattle police, Taylor had reached for a gun when officers tried to arrest him. Perhaps most significantly:
According to Seattle police, the officers "recovered Taylor's handgun" during this fatal event.
This early report by the Seattle Times provides a basic account of what the police department said about this fatal event. That doesn't mean that their account is accurate. But that's what was actually said.
No one ever said jacksquat about anybody's "waistband." Correctly or otherwise, Seattle police said that Taylor had a holstered handgun on his hip. Correctly or otherwise, they said this handgun was recovered after the brief, fatal incident.
Were these claims accurate? Like everyone else who reads the Post, we have no ultimate way of knowing. Having said that, we can also say this:
Plainly, Briscoe's essay seemed to say that her brother had no gun at all that day. In support of this obvious implication, she—and the Washington Post!—linked to that KING5 report.
When we read Briscoe's essay, we clicked her link and read that report. Tomorrow, we'll show you what we saw when we clicked. At some point, we'll even show you what the Post's own Fatal Forve site says about that event.
Tomorrow, we'll show you what we saw when we clicked Briscoe's link. But for today, we can tell you this:
We think it's astounding that the Washington Post published Briscoe's essay in the form it took. In our view, it's amazing that the Post did that—amazing, and yet not surprising.
Tomorrow: Can this possibly be what the Washington Post regards as support for a claim?
Good Morning everyone. I have nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteFive weeks ago my boyfriend broke up with me. It all started when i went to summer camp i was trying to contact him but it was not going through. So when I came back from camp I saw him with a young lady kissing in his bed room, I was frustrated and it gave me a sleepless night. I thought he will come back to apologies but he didn't come for almost three week i was really hurt but i thank Dr.Azuka for all he did i met Dr.Azuka during my search at the internet i decided to contact him on his email dr.azukasolutionhome@gmail.com he brought my boyfriend back to me just within 48 hours i am really happy. What’s app contact : +44 7520 636249
Delete
DeleteLOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever
LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email believelovespelltemple@gmail.com and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever
"For ourselves, we can't tell you what actually happened when Taylor was shot and killed."
ReplyDeleteBut of course you can, dear Bob; it's described right in the local paper's quote you posted.
"As a matter of basic journalism, it's amazing to think that the Post did that—amazing, and yet not surprising."
Tsk. If you're still amazed by brazen dembottery of your goebbelsian media - and WaPo especially - then, we are sorry to say, you have gotta to be some sort of mentally ill, dear Bob. How sad.
‘No one ever said jacksquat about anybody's "waistband."’
ReplyDeleteIt didn’t take much effort to check this out. Apparently, holsters can be worn inside the waistband:
“Inside the Waistband vs Outside the Waistband”
https://comp-tac.com/www.comp-tac.com/Inside-the-Waistband-vs.-Outside-the-Waistband
‘“There was no gun in his waistband?" This was a dramatic, highly familiar claim. It seemed to say that, in this incident, Seattle police had shot and killed yet another unarmed man.’
ReplyDeleteMaybe Somerby thinks a gun being in the vehicle you are standing outside of is equivalent to being armed.
Taylor had no gun on him when he was shot.
And there have been further developments in the case, as I mentioned yesterday. A judge found sufficient uncertainty about the facts to order a trial:
“SPD settles Che Taylor wrongful-death suit for $1.5 million; new evidence cast doubt on officers’ claim Taylor was armed”
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/spd-settles-che-taylor-wrongful-death-lawsuit-for-1-5-million-new-evidence-questioned-officers-claim-he-was-armed/
If there wasn't an 8-minute video, Officer Derek Chauvin would have thought George Floyd was reaching for a weapon too.
ReplyDeleteToday is Wed, Mar 10, NOT Tues Mar 10.
ReplyDelete"Technically, the essay was an "opinion column"
ReplyDeleteNo, literally, the essay was an opinion column. Somerby often confuses new reports and editorials and opinion columns, conflating them as if to suggest that the entire paper is one big opinion piece. That is just another way he undermines our faith in news reporting.
Somerby: “It's astounding to think that the Washington Post published Briscoe's essay in the form it took. As a matter of basic journalism, it's amazing to think that the Post did that—amazing, and yet not surprising.”
DeleteIt was clearly labeled as an opinion piece. It’s unclear what the Post’s policy is on claims made in opinion columns: do they issue disclaimers typically, or...?
Anyway, to prove that the Post is engaged in pushing some sort of narrative about police shootings in its opinion section, you would have to survey every column printed on the subject to see if such a narrative emerges before being entitled to make that claim. Somerby hasn’t come close to doing this.
In light of the fact that the Post, as a volunteer effort and in the absence of worthwhile official data, maintains the Fatal Force database that Somerby so often refers to, it is a much more problematical assertion to claim that the entire newspaper is engaged in propaganda.
"Rather plainly, she seemed to be saying that the officer's claim about the gun was false. Indeed, another implication seemed clear:
ReplyDeleteBriscoe seemed to be saying that her brother hadn't been armed at all."
Here Somerby demonstrates his highly selective literalness. When it suits him, he is the closest of readers. Today, it doesn't suit him, so he ignores the literal truth of Briscoe's statement and attributes something broader to her, something she did not say at all.
A gun was found under the seat in the car. Taylor was outside of the car with his hands up. He was literally and factually unarmed when he was shot. That is what Briscoe said and that is what the facts support.
Somerby doesn't want that to be the truth, so he makes up a different meaning and attributes it to Briscoe.
If I own a gun and keep it locked in a gun safe, or in my car (while I am out walking around), I am not armed simply because I own a gun. Armed means you have it on your person and accessible for use. It doesn't mean the gun is wrapped in oilcloth and stored in your garage.
One must ask why Somerby is working overtime today to portray this woman as some sort of liar while supporting the police in the shooting of an unarmed man who was complying with orders. Aren't there enough bigots on this planet without Somerby helping them out by maligning this woman?
"This early report by the Seattle Times provides a basic account of what the police department said about this fatal event. That doesn't mean that their account is accurate. But that's what was actually said."
ReplyDeleteThe gun was recovered, but none of this material quoted from the police report says where it was recovered. It was recovered inside the car, under the seat, with its barrel pointed forward (not the handle).
The vagueness of the police report gives them cover. Somerby uses that vagueness to exonerate the police, even though he himself states that he does not know the truth of the police report. In other situations, such reports have been falsified or been incomplete (as this one appears to be).
When Somerby covers himself by claiming that the police report could be false, but then goes on to argue based on the facts of that report, he is siding with the police and ignoring his own recognition that the report could be self-serving or protective of the officers who shot Taylor. That motivated argument is what reveals Somerby's opinions and motives. He has gone out of his way to discredit Briscoe's editorial, siding with the police and criticizing the Washington Post for giving her a platform. Who does that when he does not know the truth? Someone with a vested interest in supporting one side of this controversy, the power structure that is being accused of abuse of power.
So, we know where Somerby stands. On the wrong side again.
Digby says:
ReplyDelete"There’s been a snotty streak on the right as long as I can remember. Bob Dole was a master of the insulting zinger. Rush Limbaugh was a very nasty piece of work and there’s no need to mention Trump the insult dog. But I don’t remember it being this juvenile before. "
This puts a finger on why I dislike our Cecelia. Her comments exemplify this snarkiness that also typifies the hosts on Fox and what passes for humor on the right. I can understand that there are genuine differences of opinion between the left and right on policy issues but this meanness as humor is another key difference and it grates on me because it goes against everything I know about how to treat people as human beings.
Somerby does it too, but I'm not sure whether that arises from too much Fox News watching or too much time as a stand-up comedian. But, just as humor does have to be blue, it doesn't have to be mean either.
It's like watching a pendulum go back and forth. One side is snark, the other is grievance.
Delete"just as humor does have to be blue"
DeletePerfect example of a Freudian slip...
It wasn’t that long ago that Somerby was praising the Post for its repeated and pointed editorials calling attention to the Bijan Ghaisar shooting (even as he claimed no one in the media was discussing it):
ReplyDeletehttp://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2018/04/even-on-matters-of-race-lonesome-death.html
They continued to editorialize (and report) about it this past fall.